# What \[I\]would\[/I\] it take to disable a Nimitz class supercarrier? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 3, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453 "2014-02-03T21:17:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/101 "2014-02-10T15:38:46Z")
Well, the armor, compartmentation, and massive emphasis on damage control and firefighting make it unlikely a _Nimitz_ would be sunk or wrecked by large naval guns. Even less likely it would be sunk or seriously damaged by small land-based howitzers, which are typically much less effective than naval guns. Moving into _extremely_ unlikely that a _single_ howitzer popping off a few rounds would accomplish the task. Why not try the proven, effective way, and get a bunch of two-year-term budget hawks elected to Congress? Defund the ship. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/102 "2014-02-10T16:10:27Z")
It doesn’t have to be sunk or wrecked, just “disabled”. Presumably it would be enough to make the flight deck unusable, or even just the steam catapults. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I was responding to these comments… Ah, I missed that. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/103 "2014-02-11T01:56:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > ETA: Plus the idea of China (or a similar competitor nation) acquiring and setting up artillery within 10 miles of San Diego, Honolulu or Norfolk is pretty damn far-fetched anyway. It’s why I suggested a Mortar, at least—smaller weapon, comparatively large bomb. You wouldn’t _sink_ the carrier, but you might disable it for awhile, as well as disrupting other carrier port operations with the terror value. On the other hand, though, with the Howitzer approach, depending on the gun, it looks like you could actually reach San Diego with a gun placed outside of Tijuana. Even better results might be met using [GPS guided shells.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur) ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/104 "2014-02-11T02:08:30Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Well, the armor, compartmentation, and massive emphasis on damage control and firefighting make it unlikely a _Nimitz_ would be sunk or wrecked by large naval guns. Even less likely it would be sunk or seriously damaged by small land-based howitzers, which are typically much less effective than naval guns. > > Moving into _extremely_ unlikely that a _single_ howitzer popping off a few rounds would accomplish the task. > > Why not try the proven, effective way, and get a bunch of two-year-term budget hawks elected to Congress? > > Defund the ship. Sigh…. Obviously to sink a ship you are aided by the sympathetic explosions which the armaments you use ignite. The shells themselves don’t have to sink the vessel; the massive conflagration they cause by detonating stored munitions, aviation fuel tanks and fuel-laden aircraft most certainly could,especially since it would be a sneak attack. It’s not as if someone prior to launching an attack with a howitzer would fire a warning shot first. Or call ahead and schedule an appointment. With a sustained firing rate of 4-6 shells a minute and roughly 10-15 minutes of firing time before local law enforcement was available to somehow prevent this from occurring, between 40-90 rounds could strike their target. And a much longer rate of fire could be sustained if the howitzer were located just across the Mexican border as it would be **at minimum** 1/2 hour before anyone would muster enough testicular fortitude to launch a military strike on a foreign nation. ANd that strike would still have to take out the offending weapon. There is historical precedent for this: Land based guns of exceptionally small calibers denied British and French naval vessels access to the Dardanelles during the initial stages Gallipoli Campaign. And those were vessels which were EXPECTING to come under fire; not a vessel moored in port with a portion of its crew ashore. Finally, the question asked about DISABLING, not sinking the vessel. 20-40 armor-piercing rounds on target are going to disable almost any vessel, regardless of its size and armor. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/105 "2014-02-11T02:21:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m afraid this is a “no true Scotsman” sort of test where if I provide a cite that the system appears to work, you’ll dismiss it as a biased source. So, no real point in answering that question under your preconditions, but other interested observers may want to [read](http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/cram.html) that the system is credited with intercepting 175 incoming rockets and mortars in Iraq and Afghanistan. > > If you re-read my post, I actually acknowledge that the C-RAM system itself isn’t in use on carriers, as I explicitly said that new software would have to be developed for that capability, but that the hardware appears to exist already. > > By the way, how many opportunities have carriers had in the last 30 years to actually repel incoming artillery fire? Are you seriously asking me to provide evidence that a new defensive system has actually prevented something that has not happened? That’s a ridiculous question. > > [That actually isn’t a bad idea at all.](http://jnlwp.defense.gov/PressRoom/InTheNews/tabid/4777/Article/4141/nswc-carderock-receives-patent-for-propeller-entanglement-system.aspx) Since you brought up the system and I did not, I was giving you the opportunity to support your statements with factual examples from credible sources. Not a “Scotsman fallacy” at all; the US military is less inclined to give honest assessments of weapons systems for which the have lobbied Congress and have given exceptionally glowing reviews. An example of this was the performance of the Patriot missile system in defending Israel during the Second Gulf War. You don’t know me and you have no idea how I will respond to a given question. I have given you the courtesy of not assuming how you would respond to a statement; it would be nice if you returned the favor. Again…this would be a sneak attack against an unprepared target. If a modicum of planning were put into it, then historical evidence favors that the attack will almost certainly be partially, if not completely, successful. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/106 "2014-02-11T16:03:01Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > Sigh…. > > Obviously to sink a ship you are aided by the sympathetic explosions which the armaments you use ignite. The shells themselves don’t have to sink the vessel; the massive conflagration they cause by detonating stored munitions, aviation fuel tanks and fuel-laden aircraft most certainly could,especially since it would be a sneak attack. > > It’s not as if someone prior to launching an attack with a howitzer would fire a warning shot first. Or call ahead and schedule an appointment. With a sustained firing rate of 4-6 shells a minute and roughly 10-15 minutes of firing time before local law enforcement was available to somehow prevent this from occurring, between 40-90 rounds could strike their target. > > And a much longer rate of fire could be sustained if the howitzer were located just across the Mexican border as it would be **at minimum** 1/2 hour before anyone would muster enough testicular fortitude to launch a military strike on a foreign nation. ANd that strike would still have to take out the offending weapon. > > There is historical precedent for this: Land based guns of exceptionally small calibers denied British and French naval vessels access to the Dardanelles during the initial stages Gallipoli Campaign. And those were vessels which were EXPECTING to come under fire; not a vessel moored in port with a portion of its crew ashore. > > Finally, the question asked about DISABLING, not sinking the vessel. 20-40 armor-piercing rounds on target are going to disable almost any vessel, regardless of its size and armor. Sigh indeed. US supercarriers of the Nimitz class and beyond are regarded as _exceptionally_ durable ships, not just for their armor and size, but for the massive amount of damage-control systems (particularly firefighting) and the constant state of training the crews are kept in. Sure, you could mess it up, but I think you don’t give enough credit to the damage-resistance of these ships. No one expects them to endure sustained, heavy naval attack without damage – but you’re not talking about sustained, heavy, or even naval attack, are you? Also, a howitzer would indeed fire a ranging shot or shots, unless we’re talking about satellite-targeted smart shells, at which point you’re talking about a nation-state we probably would not moor a carrier in, not some Mexican yahoo with a howitzer. Lastly, I’m going to dispute your interpretation of the Dardanelles attack. Firstly, your characterization of the land-based guns as “exceptionally small calibers.” I am unable to find citations for the size of _all_ the Turkish fortress guns – Wikipedia mentions only one size, 9.4 inches – but [here’s a page](http://www.navyingallipoli.com/heavy_a.html) mentioning 355mm (14-inch) fortress guns at Gallipoli. I don’t see a count of how many there were, but the first gun type is described as having been in three different forts. That page also shows the 280mm (11-inch) and 240mm (9.4-inch) naval guns. There were also some small 6-inch howitzers present, I acknowledge. However, reading about the attack, it seems the ship losses were due to _mines_, not guns, and that the shore fire (including that from the small howitzers) drove off these small minesweepers. Note that the minesweepers, specifically, were crewed by _civilian_ volunteers, not Royal Navy personnel: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] The minesweepers, commanded by Carden’s chief of staff, Roger Keyes, were merely un-armoured trawlers manned by their civilian crews who were unwilling to work while under fire. [/QUOTE] How did they do? Wikipedia has a quote from one of the officers: > [@](#): > > The fear of their fire was actually the deciding factor of the fortunes of the day. For five hours the [destroyer] Wear and picket boats had experienced, quite unperturbed and without any loss, a far more intense fire from them than the sweepers encountered… the latter could not be induced to face it, and sweep ahead of the ships in ‘B’ line. Allow me to repeat, for clarity: > [@](#): > > For **five hours** the [**destroyer**] Wear and **picket boats** had experienced, **quite unperturbed and without any loss** , a **far more intense fire** from them than the sweepers encountered… the latter could not be induced to face it That doesn’t indicate to me that the big ships fled from howitzers, as you imply, but that the civilian minesweeper crews fled fire that had not shaken _picket boats_ crewed by naval personnel. ---
**Author:** ![Teuton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/teuton/32/3864_2.png) [@Teuton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teuton)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/107 "2014-02-11T16:20:37Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Kinetic energy penetrator launched from orbit aka ‘Rods from God’ I don’t think hitting something as mobile as a carrier with one of those is going to be easy. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/108 "2014-02-11T19:21:29Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Also, a howitzer would indeed fire a ranging shot or shots, unless we’re talking about satellite-targeted smart shells, at which point you’re talking about a nation-state we probably would not moor a carrier in, not some Mexican yahoo with a howitzer. Didn’t the OP specify the attacker was “a technologically advanced nation, at the level of modern day Germany, Japan, or China”? I’d kinda presumed this theoretical attacker was clandestinely moving the weapon _into_ Mexico, not just some yahoo with a surplus howitzer.\* \*Band name! ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/109 "2014-02-11T19:55:36Z")
What about laying a trap with really big air tanks that embubble the water under and around the carrier? The carrier would sink into the low-density froth. It’d take considerable stores of air, and you’d have to get your timing right to ensure the air is released under the carrier–maybe you channel the air to the target zone using really long hoses. But I’d bet that would work. The Royal Smart Person should be able to develop the process & equipment and calculate the necessary volume of air required. Relatively cheap, no fallout, no noise, no proof who did it. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/110 "2014-02-11T20:05:07Z")
> [@The Great Sun Jester](#): > > What about laying a trap with really big air tanks that embubble the water under and around the carrier? The carrier would sink into the low-density froth. It’d take considerable stores of air, and you’d have to get your timing right to ensure the air is released under the carrier–maybe you channel the air to the target zone using really long hoses. But I’d bet that would work. The Royal Smart Person should be able to develop the process & equipment and calculate the necessary volume of air required. > > Relatively cheap, no fallout, no noise, no proof who did it. Silent but deadly, in fact. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/111 "2014-02-11T20:14:31Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Sigh indeed. US supercarriers of the Nimitz class and beyond are regarded as _exceptionally_ durable ships, not just for their armor and size, but for the massive amount of damage-control systems (particularly firefighting) and the constant state of training the crews are kept in. Sure, you could mess it up, but I think you don’t give enough credit to the damage-resistance of these ships. No one expects them to endure sustained, heavy naval attack without damage – but you’re not talking about sustained, heavy, or even naval attack, are you? > > Also, a howitzer would indeed fire a ranging shot or shots, unless we’re talking about satellite-targeted smart shells, at which point you’re talking about a nation-state we probably would not moor a carrier in, not some Mexican yahoo with a howitzer. > > Lastly, I’m going to dispute your interpretation of the Dardanelles attack. Firstly, your characterization of the land-based guns as “exceptionally small calibers.” I am unable to find citations for the size of _all_ the Turkish fortress guns – Wikipedia mentions only one size, 9.4 inches – but [here’s a page](http://www.navyingallipoli.com/heavy_a.html) mentioning 355mm (14-inch) fortress guns at Gallipoli. I don’t see a count of how many there were, but the first gun type is described as having been in three different forts. That page also shows the 280mm (11-inch) and 240mm (9.4-inch) naval guns. > > There were also some small 6-inch howitzers present, I acknowledge. However, reading about the attack, it seems the ship losses were due to _mines_, not guns, and that the shore fire (including that from the small howitzers) drove off these small minesweepers. > > Note that the minesweepers, specifically, were crewed by _civilian_ volunteers, not Royal Navy personnel: > > How did they do? Wikipedia has a quote from one of the officers: > > Allow me to repeat, for clarity: > > That doesn’t indicate to me that the big ships fled from howitzers, as you imply, but that the civilian minesweeper crews fled fire that had not shaken _picket boats_ crewed by naval personnel. Let’s review: The question asked about disabling the carrier. A direct armor piercing round to the aviation fuel tanks or a munitions storage locker would do just that. Since no one has ever done this with a howitzer (or been in a position to do so for that matter), it is as I have stated, a speculative attack whose purpose would be terror. Also, there is a thing called math. Especially trigonometry. It wouldn’t be exceptionally difficult to hit an anchored target with a howitzer again using a gun crew who is experienced with the weapon and with firing at targets at the remote edge of its range. The reason that I brought up Gallipoli was not that vessels were sunk (which if you read my posting I did not say) **but that armored naval vessels were loathe to enter the straits because of land based guns**. I KNOW how the minesweeper and battleships weren’t sunk using them; since it was due to mines, and not germane to the point I was making, I didn’t bother mentioning that either. A howitzer attack on a docked carrier would be unique because: [ol] [li]It would be unexpected[/li][li]There’s little if anything the vessel could do to prevent it.[/li][li]It would be relatively inexpensive for a group looking to do so.[/li][li]If would effectively damage the carrier,especially (yet again) if it caused sympathetic explosions using on board aviation fuel and/or munitions.[/li][/ol] The “damage control” on the vessel would largely be irrelevant as it would be unlikely that would able to do anything until the firing stopped. Not much point having your damage control crews (which would be minimal on a docked vessel) be killed before they could effectively fight any fires on board. We could certainly go back and forth all day, but it would be rather pointless. I think that I have made my points and you disagree with them. That’s your right and we can leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/112 "2014-02-12T07:52:46Z")
As stated earlier, espionage. > **[U.S. Navy boots captain after fire on carrier - CNN.com](https://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/30/navy.captain.fired/index.html?eref=ib_topstories)** > > The U.S. Navy fired the captain and executive officer of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington on Wednesday because of a massive fire that damaged the ship in May, Navy officials said. The official story is that a cigarette made it to HAZMAT storage and ignited the rags. Personally I find that hard to believe and think someone usedna cigarette as a fuse. So, disabling a carrier with some high volatile solvent rags, boyscout skill, and a cigarette. Another way would be to constantly cover the ship in metal fragments that would get sucked up into the aircraft turbines. That’d would effectively negate it’s primary purpose. Lastly, ramming it while in transit at some straight, like at Hormuz. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/113 "2014-02-12T09:51:27Z")
The Russians still have powerful ship-borne guns so much so you’ll hope the saying “A carrier is the most heavily protected ship in the US navy” still runs true. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/114 "2014-02-12T14:04:20Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > Let’s review: > > The question asked about disabling the carrier. A direct armor piercing round to the aviation fuel tanks or a munitions storage locker would do just that. Since no one has ever done this with a howitzer (or been in a position to do so for that matter), it is as I have stated, a speculative attack whose purpose would be terror. > > Also, there is a thing called math. Especially trigonometry. It wouldn’t be exceptionally difficult to hit an anchored target with a howitzer again using a gun crew who is experienced with the weapon and with firing at targets at the remote edge of its range. > > The reason that I brought up Gallipoli was not that vessels were sunk (which if you read my posting I did not say) **but that armored naval vessels were loathe to enter the straits because of land based guns**. I KNOW how the minesweeper and battleships weren’t sunk using them; since it was due to mines, and not germane to the point I was making, I didn’t bother mentioning that either. > > A howitzer attack on a docked carrier would be unique because: > > [ol] > [li]It would be unexpected[/li][li]There’s little if anything the vessel could do to prevent it.[/li][li]It would be relatively inexpensive for a group looking to do so.[/li][li]If would effectively damage the carrier,especially (yet again) if it caused sympathetic explosions using on board aviation fuel and/or munitions.[/li][/ol] > > The “damage control” on the vessel would largely be irrelevant as it would be unlikely that would able to do anything until the firing stopped. Not much point having your damage control crews (which would be minimal on a docked vessel) be killed before they could effectively fight any fires on board. > > We could certainly go back and forth all day, but it would be rather pointless. I think that I have made my points and you disagree with them. That’s your right and we can leave it at that. Ok, apparently the “urge to win” is strong with you…stronger than rational argument. “A direct armor piercing round to the aviation fuel tanks or a munitions storage locker…” Sure. But those things are armored and placed deep in the ship specifically so that doesn’t happen, certainly not from something as small as Howie the Howitzer. But I guess if we imagine the ships were designed differently, we could imagine this working. Math and triangulation! Why didn’t…oh…everyone who’s ever fought in a war think of those! Despite the efforts of armchair artillerists everywhere, it turns out it’s actually pretty hard _in practice_ to hit targets at the edge of your range. That’s why it’s usually done with ranging shots, as I described. Sure, once in a while someone gets a hit on the first try – in 1944, a black artillery unit in France put three shells into the air in response to a fire mission and scored two direct hits on a German armored vehicle at a range of nine miles. But people are still talking about that today because it’s _unusual_. And regarding “ **but that armored naval vessels were loathe to enter the straits because of land based guns**.” Well, indirectly I guess you have a point, in the same way that they were loathe to enter the strait because of Gavrilo Princip. But in terms of more direct cause-and-effect, no. The quote I have (fro an actual person who was present) says that UNARMORED light ships were undeterred by the gunfire. The idea that the heavy armored ships were deterred by guns doesn’t even come up. They were deterred by _mines_. The heavy armored ships wanted to come to grips with the land-based guns; the light, weak ships weren’t deterred by them either. It was the _civilian volunteers_ who were deterred by the Turkish shelling. Regarding damage control: a carrier is a huge thing, made mostly of steel. The valuable parts are covered by more steel, and (as much as is possible) located deep within more steel. It’s all subdivided into smaller working units that can operate independently, and filled with redundancy. Historian John Keegan has written that postwar surveys of the American daylight bombing campaign against Germany showed that it’s extraordinarily difficult to damage high-grade steel machinery with high explosives. What will likely happen is that your howitzer shells will probe for weak spots and the like in a vast, hard, dense object, doing local damage only. You may incidentally kill people exposed on the deck and so on, but it would take a very lucky hit to disable the carrier, and you have zero chance of killing enough crew to take out the damage control parties. Damage control is all about getting the carrier _undisabled_ as fast as possible – i.e., undoing the thing you’re trying to do. ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453/115 "2014-02-12T17:57:10Z")
A lot of people are mentioning the use of WWII technology, like naval guns. No one gets close to each other any more, carriers are hundres of miles off of any given coast as the aircraft have a huge range which allows this. Getting close enough to do damage would be unlikely as a ship with “naval” guns would be detected long before it got in range and would be attacked. Also, factor in radar, intel, satellite imagery, and sonar. So, getting in close with a big ship with naval guns would be hard if not possible. As I was actually in the US Navy for 8 years, I have never seen a large group of ships sail together. Maybe at the beginning and end of a deployment but not while on deployment. We usually break-up into our respective “groups” for our related missions. This complement can vary from many to just a ship by itself. A carrier will probably have a DDG or a CG with is along with a SSN. Maybe throw in a supply ship (or two). Outside of being moored, or going through a straight or canal, it will be hard to get to a ship. The best bet would be a USS Cole type attack, wait for the CVN to be moored, where CIWS won’t be active (as you are in a port and there is too much traffic for it to be effective), at peak harbor/port hours you zip in a fishing boat. Disguise it looking like it has a huge catch and have a big motor on it. Cruise along normal to get within a 100’ or so and then punch it. Which is basically the Cole attack. Will this actually work, as in disabling the ship where it will have to go back in for repairs, yes. Will it sink, nope. Will the ship be able to continue on deployment? Depends where it was hit and how much explosive. Getting a larger fishing boat with a 3-4 tons of explosive on it tamped by sand to direct the blast forward would do a lot of damage. Also, the notion of multiple redundant spaces is not true. A ship might have two or more engineering “main spaces” but to consider them redundant is incorrect. If a ship has two props then each main space will power one prop. There is no way to transfer power from one to another. If there were then the integrity of the main spaces would be compromised. So, you make them fully independant of each other and that is how they are run. The notion of a myriad maze of compartments that can be sealed off to contain flooding is true. The primary and secondary damage control “control” spaces can assume each others roles 100% though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-i-would-i-it-take-to-disable-a-nimitz-class-supercarrier/680453.md?page=5)